Search for: "Hale v. Hale"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,467
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Sep 2019, 6:06 am
The Justices in attendance for the hand-down will be: Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden and Lord Kitchin. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am
Requests Ronan Lavery QC not abuse Lady Hale’s politeness. 11:27: Ronan Lavery QC submits the Government’s policy would be constitutional. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am
Lady Hale interjects in jest, noting he might have to explain the importance of 1966 (when England won the world cup). [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 4:44 pm
Contreras was a partner in the Boston, London and Washington DC offices of the international law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 7:50 am
Hale and her child (the “Hales”). [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
Lady Hale adjourns the Court for lunch until 14:00. 1303: Lord Pannick QC says authorities on dissolution are not good precedents as this power no longer exists and was personal to the Monarch. 1300: Lord Pannick QC accepts that the authorities sug [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:28 am
In England & Wales, Gina Millar (the businesswoman who brought the UK Supreme Court appeal of R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5) also raised proceedings, following the Queen’s signing of the Order in Council. [read post]
2 Sep 2019, 5:52 am
This has been repeatedly confirmed both by local courts and the ECtHR (P v Poland [2012] ECHR 1853). [read post]
15 Aug 2019, 11:24 pm
Question Raised: Which Way Did the Money Flow? [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 9:51 am
On the ‘Antecedent Policy’ point – whether a s 204 appellant can argue that an antecedent policy decision of the housing authority is unlawful in public law terms and that such unlawfulness infects the decision in the specific case – the Court of Appeal noted the tension between Lord Lewison’s obiter remarks in Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC (2017) EWCA Civ 1624; (2018) QB 1232 and dicta of Lady Hale in Nzolameso v City of Westminster… [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 4:33 pm
Handing down a unanimous decision, Lady Hale in Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) ([2019] UKSC 38) ruled that the default position is that the public should be allowed access not only to parties’ submissions and arguments, but also to documents which have been placed before the court and referred to during the hearing. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 7:13 am
Handing down a unanimous decision, Lady Hale in Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) ruled that the default position is that the public should be allowed access not only to parties’ submissions and arguments, but also to documents which have been placed before the court and referred to during the hearing. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 1:47 pm
The case is Wilson et al. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 1:00 am
The proposed panel for hand down is Lady Hale, Lord Hodge and Lord Sales. [read post]
27 Jul 2019, 4:56 am
District Court for the Northern District of California decision to issue a preliminary injunction in East Bay Sanctuary et al. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 12:35 pm
District Court for the Northern District of California’s order granting a preliminary injunction in East Bay Sanctuary et al. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 1:00 am
The proposed panel for hand down is Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 12:31 am
Agents – you need to be vigilant to watch out for discrepancies in the information provided to you as the case of Hale v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
Stott) and jurisprudence from the ECtHR, and Lord Kerr and Lady Hale despite dissenting overall agreed with Lord Wilson on the status issue. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:27 am
Lady Hale and Lord Kerr both gave dissenting judgments (Lady Hale as to outcome, though she agreed with Lord Wilson on the relevant legal principles to be applied; Lord Kerr dissented both on outcome and on the legal approach taken, specifically on the relevant test to be applied by the courts when considering the proportionality of a measure; though both agreed with certain parts of Lord Wilson’s judgment). [read post]
